Heather A. McGee

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

The mother, who had sole custody, sought to terminate the father's access to their two children, alleging the children rejected him.

The court found the mother was primarily responsible for the breakdown in the father-child relationship and had unjustifiably pressured the children to fear him.

The court ordered regular parenting time for the father, child support, time-limited spousal support, and a transfer of half the father's pension to the mother, while dismissing her claims for equalization and a restraining order.

The respondent/payor moved to set aside a warrant of committal issued after persistent non-payment of child and spousal support and repeated non-compliance with disclosure and enforcement orders.

The court held that rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure could apply to a motion to set aside a warrant, but only within the limited scope permitted by s. 41(15) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, requiring evidence of a material change in circumstances affecting ability to pay.

Applying the established three-part test for setting aside default orders, the court found the motion was brought promptly but the payor had no reasonable explanation for his non-attendance and no arguable case on the merits.

There was no evidence of a material change, no current financial disclosure, and no payment plan.

The motion was dismissed.

In a family trial involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, sale of the matrimonial home, and occupational rent, the court found the applicant's financial disclosure inadequate and preferred the respondent's evidence on disputed issues.

The court determined that substantial unreported corporate and commission income arising from insurance and mortgage activities, including an improper insurance commission scheme, had to be included for support purposes, with limited deductions for legitimate expenses.

Child support arrears were fixed at $214,321 as of April 30, 2014, no spousal support was awarded because the applicant's income always exceeded the respondent's, and ongoing income of $95,000 was imputed from January 1, 2013.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, the respondent received agreed credits and reimbursement for taxes and insurance, and the applicant's claim for occupational rent was dismissed.

In this family costs endorsement following a trial about a proposed name change for the parties' daughter, the successful respondent sought recovery of her legal fees and disbursements.

The court rejected the responding party's arguments of divided success and legal-aid-based immunity from costs, holding that success under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules remained the starting point and that legal aid was irrelevant to entitlement.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(11), the court found the issue complex because the relief pursued was not available in law, was outside the pleadings, and was not identified as a trial issue.

Full recovery costs were awarded because the unsuccessful party failed to identify any legal basis for the order sought and thereby caused unnecessary expense.

On an early family law motion brought weeks after separation, the moving party sought sole custody, primary residence, and tightly restricted supervised access based on escalating abuse allegations.

The court found the evidentiary presentation atypical and concerning, rejected or discounted several professional letters for irrelevance or non-compliance with the expert evidence rule, and emphasized the obligation of each parent to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The court concluded the moving party’s post-separation conduct was not aligned with the younger child’s best interests, particularly given the disruption of the father-child and sibling relationships.

A temporary parenting regime was imposed requiring the child to reside first with the father for a defined period, then transition into an alternating schedule, with communication protocols and continuing mutual restraining terms.

The father sought to have his particulars added to the birth registration and to pursue a hyphenated surname for the child, while the mother opposed any name change.

The court held that the Vital Statistics Act gives a mother unfettered discretion whether to acknowledge the father on birth registration and provides no statutory mechanism for an unacknowledged father to amend the child's surname.

The court considered whether to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction, but found no unintended legislative gap and no realistic prospect that the absence of a shared paternal surname would harm the father-child relationship or the child's sense of identity.

Given the child's long-established use of the maternal surname and shared surname with siblings, the claim was dismissed.

Separated spouses brought competing family law motions after a long-term marriage.

The applicant wife sought a further advance on equalization from matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust, while the respondent husband sought temporary spousal support and related relief.

Applying the Zagdanski framework, the court found sufficient certainty that at least a further minimum equalization amount would be payable, established need for funds, and fairness in ordering only a partial further advance given unresolved offsetting claims.

The court ordered a $60,000 advance on equalization, directed affidavit evidence on disputed personal property values, and awarded the husband temporary spousal support of $1,450 per month.

A father brought a motion to change a prior family order addressing custody, child support, and spousal support.

Two teenage children had moved to reside primarily with the father and expressed strong preferences to remain with him.

The court found the mother had unreasonably interfered with the youngest child’s relationship with the father and siblings and therefore ordered joint custody for the youngest child with primary residence to the mother, while granting the father sole custody of the two older children.

Child support was varied so the father paid support for only one child, and spousal support was ordered retroactively and prospectively with income imputed to the mother.

Detailed parenting time and financial arrangements were established.

A trial of competing motions to change prior family law orders addressing custody, access, child support, and special expenses.

The court determined that the parents were unable to cooperate in joint decision-making and granted the mother custody while establishing structured access for the father, including communication through parenting software and therapeutic support to rebuild the children’s relationship with the father.

The court varied the father’s child support obligation based on updated income evidence and imposed ongoing disclosure obligations.

It also terminated the prior enforcement mechanism for special expenses through the Family Responsibility Office and fixed the father’s contribution for certain activity expenses while restructuring the future approach to section 7 expenses.

Following a family law trial concerning enforcement of a prior custody and relocation order, the parties settled mid‑trial and asked the court to determine costs.

The moving party had served earlier offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the eventual settlement terms.

Applying Rules 18(14) and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that a party who achieves a result as favourable as their offer is presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs, even where the final order arises from minutes of settlement rather than adjudication.

The court found the moving party’s conduct reasonable and the opposing party’s litigation conduct unfocused and unnecessarily expansive.

Despite the responding party’s limited financial means, the court concluded entitlement to costs remained and fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Spouses jointly applied for a divorce order based on adultery and sought an immediate divorce without waiting the one‑year separation period.

One spouse filed an affidavit admitting adultery.

The court considered s. 8 of the Divorce Act and Rule 36 of the Family Law Rules.

It held that a divorce grounded in adultery must be brought by the innocent spouse against the adulterous spouse and cannot proceed by joint application where the guilty spouse is also an applicant.

The application was therefore refused.

A custody and parenting dispute concerning two young children where both parents sought primary custody.

Evidence revealed significant parental conflict, instability in the mother’s home due to revolving partners and chaotic household dynamics, and the father’s ongoing emotional reactivity toward the mother.

An Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinician described the children as closely bonded but experiencing stress related to instability and adult conflict.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded neither parent was presently suitable as a primary residential parent.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime with alternating weeks, divided decision‑making authority, counselling for the children, and set‑off child support.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement executed shortly before the parties purchased a home and later married.

The agreement provided that each party would retain their initial contribution to the home and share the remaining equity 70/30 in favour of the respondent husband.

The applicant argued she did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement and received inadequate independent legal advice.

The court found the independent legal advice was deficient but concluded the applicant was not under duress, the terms were not unconscionable, and the respondent did not take advantage of her.

The court declined to set aside the agreement.

Following a 17-year marriage, the parties engaged in high-conflict litigation primarily driven by the mother's unreasonable expectations and alienation of the children from the father.

The court determined the date of separation and resolved outstanding financial issues, including child support, spousal support, equalization, and a trust claim.

The father was ordered to pay table child support, while the mother, who earned significantly more, was ordered to pay non-compensatory spousal support based on the Custodial Payor model of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The mother's claim for an equitable trust interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $25,000 to the father.

The parties sought a determination of their date of separation.

The applicant wife claimed the date was April 11, 2011, when she retained counsel, while the respondent husband claimed it was May 28, 2008, following a physical altercation.

The parties continued to live under the same roof, file joint tax returns, and maintain joint finances until 2011.

The court found that the husband's proposed date was not supported by the evidence, as neither party acted as though the marriage had ended or made plans as separated persons.

The court accepted the wife's proposed date of April 11, 2011, as the correct date of separation.

The applicant father sought joint custody and expanded access to the parties' two children, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

The father, who had not worked since 2009 and exhibited intense anger and a disordered mental state during the trial, demonstrated no ability to communicate cooperatively with the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and maintained the father's supervised access on alternate weekends.

Claims for child support and equalization were adjourned due to the parties' failure to file proper financial statements.

Following a family law motion in which the applicant obtained exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery alleging bad faith arising from the respondent’s failure to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court declined to find bad faith, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish an intent to deceive or conceal information.

Although the applicant was the successful party, the court found her conduct partially unreasonable for failing to serve an offer to settle and for serving key affidavit evidence only two days before the motion.

Costs were reduced accordingly and a partial recovery awarded.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to provide annual income disclosure, failing to consent to direct insurance reimbursements, and failing to attend examinations in aid of execution.

The court found the respondent in contempt for failing to provide income disclosure, as it breached a clear prior order, and provided terms to purge the contempt.

The other contempt claims were dismissed because no prior orders compelled those specific actions.

The court declined to award costs to the successful applicant, finding her counsel's conduct unreasonable for advancing unavailable contempt grounds and seeking incarceration.

The responding spouse brought a long motion seeking temporary spousal support, an extension of time to advance an equalization claim, and financial disclosure, arising from an interim separation agreement executed without legal advice or financial disclosure.

The court held that the agreement expressly contemplated future determination of equalization and spousal support and therefore did not bar the claims.

Applying s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, the court extended the limitation period to permit the equalization claim to proceed, finding prima facie entitlement, delay incurred in good faith, and no substantial prejudice.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and interim spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the best available income evidence.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing to enforce child and spousal support arrears of over $292,000 against the respondent payor.

The payor argued he lacked the ability to pay and sought to encumber a property held in his deceased parents' estate, of which he was the sole executor and beneficiary.

The court found the payor failed to provide full and frank disclosure, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay under s. 41(9) of the FRSAEA.

The court ordered the arrears secured against the property, permitted the payor to list it for sale, and ordered ongoing monthly payments of $1,250 under threat of incarceration.